Arkansas Democrat-Gazette
March 12, 2003

Suit challenges burning of chemical arms;
Groups oppose incineration in 4 states, say safer method can be used in Arkansas

BY KIM MCGUIRE
ARKANSAS DEMOCRAT-GAZETTE

More than 20 environmentalist and civil rights organizations from around the nation have rallied to stop the incineration of chemical weapons in Alabama, Arkansas, Utah and Oregon.

In a lawsuit filed in District Court in Washington, D.C., the groups claim that the Army and the Department of Defense failed to compare incineration with safer disposal methods now being planned for sites in Kentucky, Indiana, Maryland and Colorado.

The plaintiffs assert that incinerating the weapons endangers the environment and poses health risks to surrounding communities. They are seeking a temporary restraining order to prevent the incineration of chemical weapons.

Currently none of nine facilities storing chemical weapons is burning materials though one could resume incineration within weeks. Several others could begin within months.

"If some communities are being afforded safer destruction methods, why not here in Arkansas and at the other sites?" asked Evelyn Yates of Pine Bluff for Safe Disposal, one of four Arkansas groups named as plaintiffs. "We all deserve maximum protection as directed by Congress and required by federal law."

About 12 percent of the nation's chemical weapons are stockpiled at the Pine Bluff Arsenal. Trial burns are scheduled for this summer, and incineration of chemical agents begins next year.

The federal lawsuit marks the first attempt to stop chemical weapon incineration at multiple sites through a consolidated legal action. In the past, attempts to halt incineration projects have gone through state courts or the process to get an environmental permit.

Greg Mahall, a spokesman for the Army's chemical weapons disposal program, said military officials had no comment on the lawsuit.

"But we do think it's important to recognize the fact that we have safely disposed of 25 per- cent of the national stockpile," he said. "We don't work in a vacuum, you know. We've got EPA and the states working with us."

The lawsuit charges that the military violated the terms of the National Environmental Policy Act, which requires rigorous studies and public comment on projects that might have a significant impact on the environment.

Craig Williams, executive director of the Kentucky-based Chemical Weapons Working Group, said the Army has failed to update those studies since safer disposal methods, including neutralization, became available.

During neutralization, dangerous chemicals are turned into less hazardous byproducts by safely reacting them with hot water and sodium hydroxide.

The Army plans to destroy weapons by neutralization at Aberdeen, Md.; Newport, Ind.; Pueblo, Colo.; and Richmond, Ky.

Incineration opponents say it is a much safer, cost-effective disposal method.

"The unacceptable performance of the existing incinerators, even after hundreds of major modifications to their original design, coupled with the Army's own acceptance of safer disposal options at four sites, clearly meets the [federal] requirements for a supplemental study," he said.

An international treaty dictates that the nation's aging, World War II-era stockpile of chemical weapons must be destroyed by 2007. Only one facility - Johnston Atoll in the Pacific Ocean - has already destroyed its cache of weapons.

For years, environmentalist groups, the military and community activists have debated whether the burning of chemical weapons can be done in a safe manner. Incineration supporters say that storing the weapons pose far greater risks than burning them.

The Army has invested billions of dollars to construct incineration facilities in Tooele, Utah; Pine Bluff; Hermiston, Ore.; Johnston Atoll; and Anniston, Ala.

"That's [cost] the one thing the Army is going to argue," said Greg Ferguson, a North Little Rock attorney who is challenging the Pine Bluff incinerator's environmental permits.

"Unfortunately, that's a powerful argument - although, if they would have listened to us to begin with, they wouldn't have spent all that money constructing these facilities and trying to acquire all the necessary permits."

Opponents, however, say the risk for harmful, even deadly air emissions during burning is too great.

The lawsuit's plaintiffs cite an incident that occurred last summer in Tooele in which two workers were accidentally exposed to GB nerve agent while doing routine maintenance. The facility has been closed since July while Army officials review what went wrong and try to make sure it doesn't happen again.

"We're very close [to reopening ]," Mahall said.

Since the terrorist attacks in New York City and near Washington, D.C., destroying the nation's chemical weapons has become an even greater priority.

Many of the stockpiles include blister and nerve agents, rockets, land mines and mustard gas.

The national groups decided to file the lawsuit when the Army decided to finalize its plan to neutralize weapons stored at the Blue Grass Army Depot in Kentucky, Williams said. By doing so, the military has demonstrated that it can eliminate the entire spectrum of chemical weapons using safer methods than incineration, he added.

"There is no reason now why you can't get rid of every single item stored at the Pine Bluff Arsenal using this kind of technology, except for the mustard gas containers," Williams said. "But unfortunately the people of Pine Bluff never got that choice."